ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

DAVIS DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT

July 20, 2000

The following comments were added July 20, 2000

  1. I attended the workshop on the DD project and want to thank you and your consultants for the information which you provided. I am a member of Prestonwood CC and a member of the Advisory Board. As a result of the Workshop and the recent news articles, I have some serious reservations concerning the proposed 100 foot right of way. First, the cost of the project with the proposed right of way could easily be double the $4.5M that was the estimate contained in the Bond Referendum. I feel this is a very serious breach of faith with the Cary residents. Second, the multi-use trails have no planned access or egress and I feel that this could cause both a safety and traffic problem at both ends of the trails. In addition, according to statements in the "Cary News", when they interviewed two bicycle riders, the riders indicated "they would not use the trails because of the heavy traffic". I know that your original plan was to have a 78 foot right of way. This information was used by property owners on DD to carry out construction of their property and the increase to 100 feet gives them some serious problems. I recognize that you must take direction from the Town Council, but I hope that you have an opportunity to express to them the concerns that you have received. I would hope that this project could return to the original 78 foot right of way. Thanks again for the information provided at the workshop. I would appreciate your consul on any action I might take to support the 78 foot right of way. I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration.
  2. The proposal to extend the width of DD into hole #11 at Prestonwood so as to make this hole unplayable is short sighted at best and borders on callousness. As a 20-yr resident of Cary and an early member of the club, I have witnessed first hand what the club has brought to the Cary community in terms of recognition and revenue.
  3. Premise 1 – Davis Drive does need improving from Apes to I-40; Premise 2 – The small stretch within Cary’s jurisdiction will not help, in fact would exacerbate the traffic problem, unless it is part of the larger area-wide solution program, ie fix Davis all the way from Route 1 to I-540 at the same time using State and Federal matching trust funds; Premise 3 – Route 55 and I-540 are planned as the major arteries North and South. Emphasis should be placed on getting them up and running even if it means toll and/or private construction. Regardless of any Davis upgrade, it will become only an arterial feeder to other major corridors and an overbuilt property and neighborhood destroying mass of asphalt which will not be able to be reversed. Cary’s $100,000,000 taxpayer surplus will pale against the damages caused by the current proposal which early estimates range as high as $800,000,000 in direct and indirect costs. SOLUTION – Limit all construction to the proposed DD widening to the current 78’ until after the I-540 and 55 are completed, then an expansion to 100 ft may be appropriate, if needed. Also Rail Transit may be resolved and it’s impact can be measured. Remember being first in highway matters usually means you were the fool. SAFETY – Too many schools, coupled with a large block of land owned by Wake County Public Schools fo more. Not a safe traffic-pedestrian interchange atmosphere, made worse by more vehicle capacity. Speed limit is too high at 45 mph. Design is for 55 mph. Too high for density, interferes with other roads with the 10% spending norm. If traffic moves at less you have wasted your money as you have not "opened" anything up. If it can run at 45+10% or 55 plus 10% you have created a safety hazard as you have provided the sidewalks for pedestrians and bike lanes for bicyclists without appropriate separation to vehicular traffic. Picture a car at 50 mph and 2 tons of steel leaving the roadway on DD and striking bicyclists and school children walking to school or waiting for a bus. Won’t happen? It happens somewhere in the US every 20 seconds of every day!! POLITICS – With a political climate already uproarish, these kinds of projects should be deferred until Council and Mayor get an endorsement through re-election. Otherwise this will be one term for most of them but the mischief on Davis will have already begun.
  4. Please reconsider the current plan to widen DD within a 100’ r/w. As you know, the negative impacts of this plan are extensive and fall hard on those retirees who chose Cary for their retirement homes when the r/w was at 78’. We fully expected the buildout to 78’, when a fourth driving lane was to be added. Indeed, all development along DD was guided by the 78’ r/w. We are fortunate here on Boltstone Ct. to be buffered from the noise and pollution of DD, and have carefully nursed the many plantings on the berm to ensure adequate separation from the traffic of the thoroughfare. It is unconscionable for the Town Council to decide in the year 2000 to change the 78’ r/w to a significantly wider roadway that will severely affect the value of these homes, in a negative way, and also degrade a quality of retirement that we have enjoyed here in Cary for about 7 years. There are unnecessary amenities in the current design of a widened highway that seem to have been hastily conceived without any thought given to the realistic needs of the project. 1. The existing sidewalk on the western side of Davis is never used by pedestrians, probably because of the potential hazards of high-speed traffic. To provide another sidewalk on the eastern side is simply unrealistic and unnecessary. Save the expense of this feature for a truly needy project in Cary. 2. A bicycle path should not be considered for DD because of the need to contain the width of the R/W so as not to intrude upon residents’ properties. Instead, consider this feature for the widened r/w in NC55 and Louis Stephens Dr. Thus, there is an additional savings to be realized by the elimination of this feature. 3. It is folly to justify this widening for safety reasons. The primary need for widening DD is to improve the movement of traffic in the commute hours in the AM and PM. The fourth lane will achieve just that. At other times, there is light traffic on DD which the present width handles nicely. Pedestrians cannot access the highway because of extensive fencing, berms, and landscaping in place. As long as there are traffic lights at selected intersections, pedestrians should be directed to follow the cardinal rule of intersection traffic, and that is to cross ONLY with the proper safety signal at the nearest signalized intersection. Why does the southern section of the proposed roadway enjoy the modest 4’ median while the middle section, between HH and M-C is burdened with an overbearing 16’ median? The 16’ median just consumes space unnecessarily, and adds to the misery to be created by the wide 100’ r/w. It is unnecessary for pedestrian safety, since there will be lights for crossing the road. As in thoroughfares throughout the world, jaywalkers who dart into traffic will always be a problem, regardless of amenities built into a design, unless, of course pedestrian bridges or tunnels are constructed, and that is not the plan. Be realistic, this section will be just fine with a 4’ median, even landscaped Cary will enjoy further savings in limiting the width of the median to the original 78’ r/w. Finally, please listen to the voices of Cary’s residents. Overwhelmingly they espouse the views described above. Please carefully read all of your mail and FAX letters, and listen to the pleas of the residents in conversations at Public Workshops, in voice mail to staff, and in telephone calls. Please do not ignore these voices opposing the unnecessary widening to a 100’ r/w, and do the return to the realistic 78’ r/w.
  5. The designs and plans presented at the 6/29/00 public workshop for the DD project demonstrate that progress has been made in returning to the original 78’ corridor width. However, we are by no means satisfied or convinced that portions of our or our neighbors’ property need to be taken. The design still needs modifications to return it to the original 78’ corridor width by additional reductions/elimination of the median and bike path, or moving the bike path to Louis Stephens. Considerable time and effort was spent attending the public workshop so that we can better understand the implications to our property. Although some meaningful information was presented on the finished product, the lack of a precise explanation for the extent to which the project will impact our property during construction (including the creation of the "fill berm") is not acceptable. If the design cannot be contained within the existing curb and guttering behind our home on the west side of DD, then we must be provided a roadwat barrier that will: 1- Minimize the property taking, 2. Minimize destruction of existing mature tree and shrub barriers during construction. The project should be financially responsible for preserving the existing vegetation during construction by transplanting and replanting or by whatever means necessary to restore it to "as is" condition. 3 Limit the noise of the construction and the additional noise from increased traffic. The safest and most effective barrier is an 8’ brick wall stretching across the entire back of our property lines as well as the adjacent properties along DD. We remain supportive of a plan widening DD to 4 lanes within the original 78’ r/w. That was the plan around which all of the properties were masterplanned, permitted, constructed, and purchased within the past 10 years. We are also available for discussions with the City to discuss solutions, alternatives, and plans.
  6. It has been brought to our attention that the Town of Cary is considering widening DD. I understand that one of two options being studied will remove the 11th hole at Prestonwood Country Club. As a result of this 100’ option the Fairways Course will be left with no utility to Prestonwood Country Club. The 78’ proposal would allow the hole and golf course to remain in tact. NC State University’s athletic department has had a long, positive relationship with Prestonwood Country Club. Because of their unwavering support of oor golf teams by making their facilities open to our student atheletes to play and practice, we are able to compete at the top of the ACC and the NCAA. Prestonwood CC is a vital part of our golf program at NC State. The 100’ widening proposal would have a severely adverse impact on Prestonwood CC, and therefore, would substantially limit our teams’ playing and practice opportunities. There is no doubt that would have a negative effect on our golf teams’ competitiveness. It is our department’s sincere hope that a resolution can be found that will serve the motorists of Davis Drive, while leaving Prestonwood CC in tact.
  7. A petition with 605 signatures was presented that states "Keep it at 78 feet".
  8. It seems that the people who will benefit from the bicycle paths are those who choose to save money and not pay extra to live in the country club area (Preston and Preston Village). They want the bicycle paths so their kids can ride from the other side of High House to the pools and cclub. In order to do this you make the people who will not benefit from the bicycle paths suffer. A brick/concrete wall will provide better protection from small children wandering out of adjacent to DD. It will also cut down on amount of residents’ land that must be taken.
  9. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed expansion plans for DD. As a member of the Georgetowne community, I am understandably interested in these plans and the subsequent impact on our community, our property values, and families who live here. My specific concerns are twofold: 1 – At the town meeting in the Page Walker facility, I heard that our community will be opened up at the cul-de-sac to provide access to Bridle Creek Dr. Is this still true? We are concerned with the "cut through" traffic with cars speeding through our community for a short cut. Many of the families have discussed this and we feel that, if it will be opened, please finish that prior to starting the road construction along DD. This will allow us access without the safety factors of dealing with the construction. 2- The second concern focuses on the actual need for any type of median along DD. As a member of the Federal Government, I researched this issue within the Federal Department of Transportation with the following results: *There are shortcomings with these types of narrow medians: (a) it does not separate opposing streams of traffic sufficiently to eliminate approaching headlight glare, (b) it does not releive the feeling of constriction in multipleplane highway operation, (c) it does not eliminate the probability of vehicles figuring in an accident on one highway from ending up in the opposing lanes of traffic, and others that I’ve highlighted on the attached sheets. * Raised medians are fixed obstacles, they do not prevent head-on collisions, and they inhibit left turn and crossing movements. The referenced (attached) states that flush (painted) medians, as a general rule, are the most effective. * I am also concerned with the proposed cost of the median. The handouts listed a proposed cost at $1.4M which seems better suited for use on improving the Davis Drive school system. Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to reviewing your finalized plans. (Ed. Note – Two search results were attached. One article is dated 1951, the other 1988.)

To update the report of e-mails related to the project, in total we have received 20 requesting that we keep all improvements within 78’, 29 from residents requesting that we provide bike lanes within the roadway, 30 from non-residents requesting that we provide bike lanes within the roadway, and 4 from residents concerned with limiting their access to Davis Drive.

COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2

DAVIS DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT

July 9, 2000

The Town of Cary and TranSystems would like to thank everyone who came out to the public workshop on Thursday, June29th to express their interest in this project. Approximately 150 people attended the workshop (100 signed in). The following written comments and questions were received at and following the public workshop.

The following comments were added 6/30/00

  1. Stay within the current 78’ R/W north of HH Rd. Put a sidewalk on at most one side of the road, do not add a bike path, do keep a turn lane. Basically, the 5-lane section layout without a sidewalk on one side of the road will fit in the 78’ r/w.
  2. Before we bought the lot where we built our house, we checked with the Town of Cary and were told that Davis Drive was already about as wide as it would ever be. We were pleased with the new plan because it impacts us minimally. I am sorry for any inconvenience to my neighbors. Since I work in the Park, I am glad to have Davis Driv3e widened to 4 lanes. I am also in favor of the design which straightens out the curve between Preston Village Way and the Brookmere entrance. We feel that DD is too busy for a bike path. Please move to Louis Stevens Road instead. This will also help to impact less on the golf course and Boltstone Ct.
  3. Reduce the r/w north of HH Rd to original proposal of 78’. Do not increase! Also, reduce sidewalk to one side.
  4. Please keep left turn access into and out of existing subdivisions (e.g. Rigsbee Farm, Georgetowne, Preston Village, etc.) It would be nice to widen slightly there to make a safer 2-part turn out of the subdivisions.
  5. The bike lanes need to be on Davis Drive. The only other acceptable means to provide for safe bicycle-commuting is to make minimum 14’ wide car lanes.
  6. With the rising cost of fuel I am surprised that anyone would not have it in their plans to include a bike path with enough distance between the road and the path to ensure a safe commute from Cary to RTP. I will object to any widening of Davis Drive unless it includes a path. What will you think of when we have our next gas crisis? Putting a path in after the fact will cost more money.
  7. I agree with: 1.Council working with DOT to achieve a regional plan, 2.sidewalks on at least one side of DD. I can accept: 1. 12’ rather that 11’ lanes, 2. Concrete rather than grass medians, 3. Vegetated retaining walls. I prefer: 1. Council heed input from voters on medians, sidewalks, and bike lanes, 2. No bike lanes on Davis Dr. so that we can return to a 78’ r/w to a. reduce costs by spending less on property acquisition b. reduce the traffic noise in adjacent neighborhoods, c. encourage bikers to choose different routes where levels of co2 are lower. I AM A BIKE COMMUTER (7 MILES – WESTON PKWY) AND I WOULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BIKE DAVIS DRIVE EVEN WITH SPECIAL LANES.
  8. I received conflicting information concerning signalization of the intersection of Hogan’s Valley Way. TranSystems indicated that the plans did not include signalization of that intersection. Also, closing HVW was not studied. Consideration should be given to installing a cul-de-sac. Hogan’s Valley traffic could access at Creek Park or Morrisville Pkwy. The 100’ section between High House and Morrisville Pkwy creates too large of an impact on the golf course.
  9. 1. Bike lanes on sidewalks or bike paths parallel to road are inherently less safe than bikes on road w/ adequate space because motorists aren't expecting cyclists and bikes will effectively lose right of way. It might attract more novice cyclists because it looks safer, but it is dangerous to attract novice cyclists into an inherently more dangerous situation. I will be on the road anyway (as I am entitled by law to be) and I will take the lane. The pelotors that use this road after work will totally stop traffic. 2. 12-foot outside lanes are pretty tight, and 11 ft. lanes are ridiculous. Take the pavement from the bike path and put it in the road. 3. A lot more people would cycle, reducing traffic if lanes were adequate. Without adequate lanes they’ll be put inot more dangerous situation of riding the bike lane. Note, currently most traffic is in one direction so cars can go around bikes. With two lanes of full traffic going same direction they won’t be able to, so leave us some space. I want a 5 ft. sidewalk and 14ft outside lanes. Alternatively, have inside lane 11’ and outside lane 13’.
  10. We just moved to NC 3 weeks ago and purchased a home in Preston Arbor Lane for the golf course view. We understand the need for expansion of Davis Drive, but hope the Town Council & engineers will consider not putting a bicycle path there instead of doing it on Louis Stevens Dr. We are under th impression that the road was to be widened to a 78’ r/w which would make for safer, faster, less congested DD & still allow the golf course to maintain the 11th hole. Thank you for your consideration.
  11. Please keep the easement at 78’ which is the amount we were told when we bought our property. It is not fair to change the rules "during the game". We do not need a bike path for a very small minority of the population to use. This small number would not be cost effective. Bikers would not be safe on the area next to the golf course.
  12. As a Wake County resident & close neighbor of Cary, I am pleased that some provision has been made for bikers in the section north of High House Rd. However, I wonder why the 10’ multiuse trail was not extended south of HH. From my house, my husband and I could ride to Davis Drive, he could ride to work in RTP, I could reach shopping that way. This is the ideal time to provide safe access for bicycles. Many people may not ride on the roads now because of the danger, but would if bike trails were available.
  13. We feel that the proposed change to the 78’ r/w to 100/’ is unnecessary. A 16’ median serves absolutely no purpose and a sidewalk/bike path unnecessary. Davis Drive has no pedestrians using the current sidewalks and after an expansion of the road which will result in higher speeds will make walking and biking more dangerous. As far as asthetics are concerned, it can be made a nicer drive by adding foliage to roadway as opposed to a 16’ median.
  14. The bike path will not be very useful unless it extends in RTP. Why build a small section until the plan for all of Davis is complete? Don’t waste money and homeowner’s land on a path that will not be used. Also, I would like a personal copy of the plan for the section of Davis Drive that is adjacent to my property.
  15. Please keep total width to 78ft. between High House Rd and M’ville Pkwy. Immediate area residents should not be penalized with a wider road. Four lanes with small median is enough. Traffic can use Rt. 55 and Outer Loop in long term future.
  16. As Club Manager of Prestonwood CC we would like the Town to know that any extension beyond the original 78’ R/W will have a serious impact on the 11th hole of the Fairways golf course. Issues: 1. Loss of Trees, 2. Public safety from errant shots, 3. Devaluation of club & surrounding property, 4. Expense.
  17. Bike paths that run parallel to urban streets and cross driveways and intersections in the same manner as pedestrian facilities are the MOST dangerous places to ride a bicycle. It is immoral to lure inexperienced cyclists into traffic by providing facilities that make them feel safe but actually put them at greater risk. If we want to improve conditions for both motorists and cyclists, 14ft. outside lanes are best. Narrow outside lanes (13’ and smaller) will only reduce the motorist speeds and throughput when cyclists take the lane.
  18. I am hoping that the berm in my back yard is going to stay in place. If you have a topical view (or when ther is one) I would be very interested in seeing this. I am mainly interested in the impact to the berm and how much will be taken away.
  19. Please add bike lanes back into plans. It would help reduce traffic to RTP and lessen pollution. Adding more lanes for cars would only encourage more traffic and more pollution.
  20. Do not and will not support the loss of hedges on the berm. Will not be willing to have any construction done on the berm.
  21. Against proposed width of 100’. Actually against widening to 4 lanes at all, but can live with that much better than 100’. In AM backup is at merge of Morrisville Parkway traffic and Morrisville-Carpenter Rd. light. Once clear light, traffic flows into park. Why not try putting additional lane from Morrisville Pkwy. to Morrisville-Carpenter Rd. and 4-lanes into Park from there? Also, today w/ traffic backed up can merge from Preston Village into traffic, with traffic moving merging may be difficult, may necessitate adding lights, which may negate traffic flow benefit. In PM backup is at Morrisville-Carpenter light & High House. Put left turning lane onto Morrisville Parkway. Not sure what to do at High House, perhaps left and right turning lanes onto HH.
  22. The following comments were added 7/5/00.
  23. I have sympathy for those who could be hurt by losing property or privacy but I am most concerned by the potential for negative impact on all of the property values in Preston Development. Residents in Preston rely on the value of the Prestonwood CC to remain high and expect it to continue to serve as a draw to Cary and this area. The options for invading the 11th hole of the golf course should be eliminated. The original plan with the 78ft r/w follows the current road and r/w and this is a reasonable path. Extending the width and straightening out the curve in the road is an unnecessary invasion of private property. It may seem easy to powers of eminent domain to confiscate property but think about the impact on the community if you screw up the tax base. Just because we have paid too much taxes it shouldn’t provide you with an incentive to spend it all. You were not elected to see how much you can tax and spend. Please be fiscally responsible and reduce taxes to make this a more attractive community.
  24. The plans presented at Thursday’s Public Workshop demonstrate that progress has been made in returning to the original 78’ corridor width. However, we are by no means satisfied or convinced that portions of our neighbors property needs to be taken. The design still needs modifications to return it to the original 78’ corridor width by additional reductions / elimination of the median and bike path, or moving the bike path to Louis Stevens. Considerable time and effort was spent attending the public workshop so that we can better understand the implications to our property. Although some meaningful information was presented on the finished product, the lack of a precise explanation for the extent to which the project will impact our property during construction (including the creation of a "fill berm") is not acceptable. If the design cannot be contained within the existing curb and guttering behind our home on the west side of DD, then we must be provided a roadway barrier that will (1) minimize the taking of property, (2) minimize destruction of existing mature tree and shrub barriers during construction. The project should be financially responsible for preserving the existing vegetation during construction by transplanting and replanting or by whatever means necessary to restore it to "as is" condition, and (3) limit the noise of construction and the additional noise from increased traffic. The safest and most effective barrier is an 8ft brick wall stretching across the entire back of our property lines as well as the adjacent properties along DD. We remain supportive of a plan widening DD to 4 lanes within the original 78’ corridor width. That was the plan around which all of these properties were master-planned, permitted, constructed and purchased within the past 10 years. We are also available for discussions with the City to discuss solutions, alternatives, and plans.
  25. (1)Thanks very much for organizing and running two public workshops on the proposed widening of Davis Drive. The meetings were very informative, and enabled the residents whose properties would be directly or indirectly impacted by the widening, to meet with some of the Town Council, staff and consultants involved in this controversial project. (2)Please send individual packets of Public Workshop Comments from both workshops (November 4, 1999 and June 29, 2000) to all members of the Town Council of Cary. ( At the second workshop meeting, I detected that the public’s comments of the first workshop published on the Town’s website, as well as the many e-mails, mailed letters and signed petitions remain largely unread or simply ignored by the Mayor and the Town Council. I do hope that the public’s viewpoints, as expressed in these communications, will be read and considered be these responsible officials in town government.) (3)The 78ft r/w was the thoroughfare ordinance in effect for DD when our houses in the DD corridor were constructed and purchased, and equally important, was the reference limit of the widening of DD when the referendum for the road construction bond program was passed by a vote of the residents of Cary. To then amend the r/w to the current designation of 100’, with the attendant impact of intruding onto the properties of people, when it is truly unnecessary, is an affront on the public’s trust in elected officials and a violation of the spirit of mutual understanding by the Town in its relations with its residents. (4)There is no need for an additional sidewalk on the eastern side of DD. As we all know, few pedestrians, if any, walk on the existing sidewalk on the western side, and it is just unrealistic to expect additional walkers on the two sidewalks adjacent to a highway where vehicles travel at an excessive speed during the non-commute hours, or most of the day. This will save 5 feet in r/w and possibly eliminate the need to reinforce berms and other structures. (5)There is no need for a bike path. A consideration of such an amenity is best reserved for those highways with a broad r/w, such as NC55 with a planned widening as a 150-ft artery to RTP. This will save an additional 10 feet in the proposed r/w for DD and significantly help to reduce the construction intrusions onto our properties. (It is also unrealistic to expect many cyclists intent on arriving at work in heavy perspiration in order to cut down on driving. If there are any, then the construction costs are being elevated for the few favoring this alternative means of going to work.) (6) The addition of a fourth lane to DD and the construction of turning lanes at the selected intersections having synchronized traffic lights are the major factors for alleviating traffic backup, especially in the two commute periods of the business day. That improvement seems fine to all concerned. As we all know, DD is only heavily trafficked in the daily commute hours, and shows very light traffic during the remainder of the day. (The traffic on DD during the non-commute hours is possibly less than that on N. Academy St., and certainly less than that on Chapel Hill Rd, both neighboring streets of Town Hall.) (7) There is no need for a 16’ landscaped median on DD. It would be just fine to jettison this feature and return to the 4-ft median, thus removing additional encroachment by the widened road.
  26. I am writing to encourage you to revert to the original four lane 78 ft r/w for Davis Drive. The proposed 100’ r/w will make hole number 11 un-playable. It will turn that particular golf course into a 17-hole practice course. Even if the hole can be re-designed, the proximity to the road would create a hazard to oncoming traffic and a liability to the golfers. I feel that these changes will de-value my property and club membership. I hope you will consider the recommendation of the town engineers and locate the bike paths on the new RTP corridor. This would be a safer place for them and it would eliminate the need for a median and additional widening of DD.

In addition to the above comments, since the workshop, we have received the following e-mails related to the project:
14 requesting that we keep all improvements within 78’, 25 from residents requesting that we provide bike lanes within the roadway, 29 from non-residents requesting that we provide bike lanes within the roadway.

Staff would like to clarify the current status of "bike lanes" for the project. The portion of the project south of High House Rd. currently does not include bike lanes of any kind. The portion of the project north of High House Rd. currently provides a separate 10’ wide shared bike/pedestrian path. Staff is currently investigating adding 2’ of width to the outside lanes to provide room for bicyclists but we are not providing a separately designated "bike lane" between the curbs. Providing these 14’ wide outside lanes will not increase the required r/w beyond the 100’ width indicated on the preliminary plans seen at the workshop.

Staff is meeting with members of Town Council on Monday, July 9th and Town Council will discuss the project at the July 10th Council meeting.

June 19, 2000 Davis Drive Project Update

May 15, 2000 Davis Drive Project Update

Davis Drive Staff Report

Davis Drive Progress Report

Davis Drive Public Workshop Comments